Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose non-schema behavior ('Flat 5 points per successful run', a cost/credits hint) and the shape of the result, but says nothing about authentication requirements, what happens on an unknown registration number, or whether a failed lookup still costs points.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the identifier options and returned fields. No filler or redundant restatement of the name/title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields returned and the pricing model. It is nearly complete, though a note on failure/not-found behavior would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'company' parameter, which already documents that it accepts a registration number or registry URL and gives the example 24256790. The description restates the same accepted inputs without adding format constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one company from the Denmark registry (CVR)'), names the accepted identifier types, and enumerates the returned fields (name, status, registration date, address, legal form). 'one company' plus the identifier-based lookup implicitly and clearly separates it from the batch-oriented sibling run_dk_companies_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent how to invoke it (registration number or registry URL) but never states when to pick this over run_dk_companies_search or run_dk_company_filings. The single-record vs. search distinction is only implied by the word 'one'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.